Re: ***SPAM*** Re: Toronto 2017 case R6

The points Volker made are perfectly correct, and I accept them, so I 
must have made my point unclearly.

What I intended to say is that if we accept the outcome of North's 
"infraction", then we must also accept that North makes it.

And we accept the outcome of North's infraction not becaue by chance it 
did not cause damage, but because it was impossible to cause damage.

We issue PP's over and above adjustments for infractions which a 
competitor makes, often withoug knowing it will be an infraction. That 
is not the cause here. North knows very well that he should not tell 
South what to bid, and he does it anyway. There is no need for a PP in 
order to educate North. Nor is there any need for a PP because North 
could have been mistaken in thinking it did not matter. We all agree 
that it did not.

That is why I say there seems to me no need for a PP.

And just to recap: I agree with Volker's comment that maybe there was 
some damage after all!

Herman.

Volker Walther wrote:
> Am 24.02.2018 um 14:55 schrieb Herman De Wael:
>> Look,
>>
>> We seem to agree that thanks to his remark, he was allowed to bid 7H.
>> We also agree that the remark did not carry useful UI to partner, or at
>> the very least, any use of such UI would be superseded by his bid of 7H.
>>
>> So why do we need to give a PP for an action which carried no ill effect?
> 
> Because there was no ill effect and therefore no adjustment!
> 
> The purpose of a procedure penalty is to stress that there was an
> intolerable infraction. If the infraction caused an ill effect, there
> will be an adjusted score, making the culprit feeling penalized.
> 
> An adjustment should take away any advantage that may be caused by the
> infraction. In many cases this leads to an indirect penalty. Because
> attempting to take away any advantage gained by the infraction the
> adjustment takes away more than the actual benefit.
> (After receiving UI the score is changed from N3NT to W3H undoubled,
> despite the fact that W3H doubled is an LA as well)
> 
> In these common cases there is no need for a PP.
> 
> But we should ensure that they offending side will not do this
> infraction again, especially if they did not benefit from the
> infraction. And therefore we need PPs.
> 
> I think any infraction should be covered by a PP, at least a warning.
> But after a severe rectification a PP can be omitted.
> 
> 
> By the way: Norths action may have caused damage! When North said that
> he will convert to 7S anyway, everybody knows  that South's bid is
> becoming completely meaningless. So E/W can take no conclusion from the
> call S actually chooses. This may not have caused damage in the actual
> case, but if is a structural benefit form North's infraction.
> 
> Volker
> 
> 
> 
>>
>> Herman.
>>
>> Sven Pran wrote:
>>> It is indeed.
>>> And being a deliberate extraneous mark at his partner's turn to call (and which could influence his partner's selection of call) it deserves a hefty PP to say the least.
>>>
>>> -----Opprinnelig melding-----
>>> Fra: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] På vegne av Herman De Wael
>>> Sendt: fredag 23. februar 2018 13.46
>>> Til: blml <[email protected]>
>>> Emne: ***SPAM*** Re: [BLML] Toronto 2017 case R6
>>>
>>> I consider his mention as "I will be bidding at my turn" not as a bid, but as an extraneous remark.
>>>
>>> brian wrote:
>>>> On 02/22/2018 09:26 PM, David Grabiner wrote:
>>>>> The Director is within his rights to adjust the score.  North
>>>>> committed an infraction, and since the Laws do not provide a specific
>>>>> redress for this infraction, the Director should make a ruling which
>>>>> restores equity.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I understand that the fact that this is at the seven level makes
>>>> things a little unusual, but under more normal circumstances, would
>>>> there not be some logic to treating North's announcement as a bid out
>>>> of rotation?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Brian.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 8:56 PM, Richard Hills <[email protected]
>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>        The Appeals Committee applied a Disciplinary Penalty of 4 Victory
>>>>>        Points to North's side. But the question I am interested in is
>>>>>        whether or not the Director exceeded their powers in adjusting the
>>>>>        score.
>>>>>
>>>>>        Best wishes,
>>>>>
>>>>>        Richard Hills
>>>>>
>>>>>        Sent from my iPad
>>>>>
>>>>>        > On 23 Feb 2018, at 3:10 AM, Bill Kemp <[email protected]
>>>>>        <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>>>        >
>>>>>        > No consideration of a disciplinary penalty for disrupting the
>>>>>        auction?
>>>>>        > Bill
>>>>>        >
>>>>>        > Sent from my iPad
>>>>>        >
>>>>>        >> On 22 Feb 2018, at 13:50, Richard Hills <[email protected]
>>>>>        <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>>>        >>
>>>>>        >> In an auction which was competitive up to the 7-level, East has
>>>>>        just bid 7D. Before South has a chance to generate UI by breaking
>>>>>        tempo, North forestalled South's break-in-tempo by announcing
>>>>>        that, "I am bidding 7S no matter what you do." Now relieved of any
>>>>>        burden of responsibility, South is able to double 7D in tempo. As
>>>>>        advertised, North converts to 7S, which is cold for 13 tricks, +2210.
>>>>>        >>
>>>>>        >> The Director ruled:
>>>>>        >>
>>>>>        >> A) Without North's extraneous remark, South would have broken
>>>>>        tempo before doubling 7D.
>>>>>        >> B) Defending 7Dx was a logical alternative to bidding 7S.
>>>>>        >> C) The hypothetical break-in-tempo demonstrably suggested
>>>>>        removing to 7S.
>>>>>        >> D) Hence the score was adjusted to 7Dx -800.
>>>>>        >>
>>>>>        >> The Appeals Committee ruled:
>>>>>        >>
>>>>>        >> Y) Without South actually breaking tempo, North does not
>>>>>        actually hold any Unauthorized Information, hence North can choose
>>>>>        any call.
>>>>>        >> Z) Thus the table score of 7S +2210 was restored.
>>>>>        >>
>>>>>        >> Best wishes,
>>>>>        >>
>>>>>        >> Richard Hills
>>>>>        >>
>>>>>        >> Sent from my iPad
>>>>>        >> _______________________________________________
>>>>>        >> Blml mailing list
>>>>>        >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>>>>        >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>>>>>        <http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml>
>>>>>        >
>>>>>        > _______________________________________________
>>>>>        > Blml mailing list
>>>>>        > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>>>>        > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>>>>>        <http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml>
>>>>>        _______________________________________________
>>>>>        Blml mailing list
>>>>>        [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>>>>        http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>>>>>        <http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Blml mailing list
>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Blml mailing list
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
>>>> http://www.avg.com
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Blml mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Blml mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Blml mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>>
> 
> 
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml